Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[Jedi]

Where did Al Jazeera get that number from?

hamas

 

[Ziggurat]

From elsewhere:

Jedi is correct. The Gaza health ministry is Hamas. Don't trust their numbers.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

yes. the land was under british control and ottoman control for the 400 years prior. it was split between 2 peoples that have at least equal claim by the UN.
should jews have accepted having no state? would that have been fair?

When the British took over the mandate in 1918 the population was 99% Muslim.

The equal claim happened because of a MASSIVE import of European Jews without any attempt to take into consideration the local population's wishes.

Fair would have been a Jewish state carved out of Bavaria and maybe parts of Austria.

Of course it's far too late to punish the descendants of the ones stealing the land now, but accepting that the land was unfairly stolen and recompensing the ones it was stolen from could go a long way in stabilizing the area.

 

[Lplus]

When the British took over the mandate in 1918 the population was 99% Muslim.

The equal claim happened because of a MASSIVE import of European Jews without any attempt to take into consideration the local population's wishes.

Fair would have been a Jewish state carved out of Bavaria and maybe parts of Austria.

Of course it's far too late to punish the descendants of the ones stealing the land now, but accepting that the land was unfairly stolen and recompensing the ones it was stolen from could go a long way in stabilizing the area.

Sounds cool, but when the only acceeptable recompense is the obliteration of the descendants and the total removal of their state, it becomes impossible.

 

[webfusion]

Why should they. it is not like it is a desireable piece of real estate.

Oh, I dunno about that. Back when Israelis had set up some resorts, I recall spending many hours of relaxing time near the Mediterranean seashore of Gaza, it was quite the lovely place. (Neve Dekelim)

Apparently, Gazans still consider their coastline location to be of value.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g6697294-zff8-Gaza-Hotels.html

 

[webfusion]

When the British took over the mandate in 1918 the population was 99% Muslim. -- L. Sisser

The Mandate was created at the San Remo Conference in 1920 (not 1918) and it included the lands of today's Jordan.
In 1921, the British severed it and not a single Jew was allowed to live there.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/when-churchill-severed-transjordan-from-palestine

For your information, in the late-1800's, a plurality of population in Jerusalem were Jews.

 

[webfusion]

Also from Al Jazeera liveblog:

At least 7,703 over 8000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks since October 7. More than 1,400 people were killed in the Hamas attack on Israel.

This is not a World Series baseball game, where the higher total of runs scored indicates a victory.

By the way, this is the only casualty list that truly indicates the relevant situation.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/379327
(an interim summary of the Hamas men who have been eliminated since the beginning of the war in Gaza.)

 

[Planigale]

Jedi is correct. The Gaza health ministry is Hamas. Don't trust their numbers.

Although previously they have beeen accurate even during previous conflicts with subsequent independant verification. Looking at their track record it is not unreasonable to believe them. Looking at the extent of destruction, the figures are not unreasonable. They do also report missing as a seperate category if they wanted to inflate the numbers it would be easy to include the missing in the confirmed dead.

I am not sure why people are so keen to try to minimse the number of deaths. Most of the people woking for the department of health will be professionals trying to their jobs as well as they can.

 

[Planigale]

It's as serious a question as what it was a response to. How serious that is depends on you.



By the look of this argument, it relies on a number of rather problematic assumptions. One of the first of those is that "Palestinians" existed as an actual group, rather than simply being Arabs, many of whom were coming into the area at the same time that many Jews were coming into the area. Another, by the look of it, is that the Jews there just magically poofed into being and were not a real and significant power/population at the time of decision-making. There's more, but when the premises that you seem to be working from seem to lack recognition of even those basic points, it's hard to take this attempted line of argument to be anything other than an attempt to appeal to the current situation and emotion.

To poke at a somewhat more relevant question to the past, if you're a renter and the land owner sells the property to someone else, who then uses the land for other purposes, does that justify you seeking to murder the new owner and then just steal that land by force? The Arabs were rather vocal about their desire to do exactly that the moment that they felt that they could, after all, at last check. And, in fact, did immediately start a war to seek to do so the moment that they felt that they could. Should the Jews who had legally obtained property, often going out of their way to seek non-contentious land where they wouldn't displace the locals, have just let themselves be murdered and their hard work and very significant contributions plundered?

That's pretty much exactly the kind of thing that you're trying to make justified with that last "Would you have accepted the UN resolution that created the whole **** storm if you were a Palestinian?" There's plenty of ugh that can be pointed at on whichever side, of course, but the logic that you're pushing seems to have very little other than attempted spin in the way of historical roots, concern with principle, or much of anything else objective in favor of an attempt at superficial emotional appeal.

This seems to be something that has often beeen posted, that prior to say 1900 Palestine was an empty land, then Arabs moved in just at the sametime that European Jews began to move in? That the Palestinians who were displaced in 1948 were not indigenous but merely migrant workers?

Is there any reliable evidence to support this? It is often asserted but no one making this assertion has referenced it.

The Zionist* slogan

A land without people for a people without land

seems to be only a slogan not a claim evidenced in fact.

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_007

https://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/

*In the strict sense.

 

[Planigale]

i'm saying the land did not belong to the Palestinians or Jews for 100's of years. At the time it belonged to the british who allowed the UN to partition it. 80% of it became Jordan, and the remaining 20% was split between Jews and the Arabs living there.

A lot of mid-east countries emerged from the breakup of the ottoman empire in the early 20th century. I don't recall anyone being democratically asked anything.


Jews have no claim to the land cause they're an "ethicity/religion"??
what are Arabs? and why the scare quotes around "The Jews"?

This is untrue. Not even the British claimed that Palestine belonged to the Empire (if it had then Palestinians would have potentially been British citizens). The land was allocated to Britain by the league of nations to administer; the mandate. This was land that had been part of the Ottoman empire prior to it being on the losing side in WW1. The object of the mandate was to give "administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone". The best that could be said was that the British were the factor or steward acting upon behalf of the League of Nations. The British did not allow the UN to partition it, the UN developed a plan for the future of British administered Palestine, then withdrew the mandate from Britain (effectively sacking Britain). The original intent of the mandate was self rule by the peoples of Palestine, however by 1948 things had changed and the UN as the successor of the league of nations changed the mandate (not unreasonably given recent history) to try and facillitate the creation of a Jewish homeland.

https://www.gchq.gov.uk/information/palestine-mandate

 

[Thermal]

i'm saying the land did not belong to the Palestinians or Jews for 100's of years. At the time it belonged to the british who allowed the UN to partition it. 80% of it became Jordan, and the remaining 20% was split between Jews and the Arabs living there.

Right, but only Israel was "inserted", intentionally, into the existing demographic, with the express intent to give them a country out of that region where they didn't have one. At the beginning of the 20th century, the area was 99% Arab. The Ballsack Declaration (or whatever it was called) basically said "yeah **** you Arabs, we are preparing to award your occupied lands to people we like better". Thats...hostile. Yes, the wording was sugar coated, not really saying it would be a land grab and ethnic displacement, but we saw how it ended.

A lot of mid-east countries emerged from the breakup of the ottoman empire in the early 20th century. I don't recall anyone being democratically asked anything.

Uh huh. And how many of them involved kicking ethnic groups out of their lands? Not that other countries are really the discussion here. We are talking about God's Chosen People being handed other peoples territory, of God's Chosen Peoples choice. By the time of the UN resolution, the region was something like twice as many Arabs as Jews (and almost all those Jews had amassed there in the few years since the Ballsack Declaration which promised that they were going to be handed territory).

Jews have no claim to the land cause they're an "ethicity/religion"??

No group, religious or otherwise, lays legitimate claim to their preferred lands solely because they think God gave them those lands, yes.

what are Arabs?

In this context, the people who were actually living in the territory and largely violently expelled.

and why the scare quotes around "The Jews"?

Because I dislike the endless equivocation between the ethnic/religious group and the secular state. Please don't cheap out and start with hurling the antisemitic accusations, if that's were you are going. An American/European /etc rabbi has little if anything to do with the State of Israel slaughtering its enemies en masse. I hope, anyway.

 

[Thermal]

By the look of this argument, it relies on a number of rather problematic assumptions. One of the first of those is that "Palestinians" existed as an actual group, rather than simply being Arabs, many of whom were coming into the area at the same time that many Jews were coming into the area.

Exactly my point. The area was almost entirely Arab at the start of the 20th century, with the big Declaration. THAT'S when Jewish people started amassing in the region. It was a fairly calculated intent from word go.

Another, by the look of it, is that the Jews there just magically poofed into being and were not a real and significant power/populationat the time of decision-making.

Again, yeah, how about that? Jewish peoples went from being a trace population to being a third of it within a generation, coincidentally after being promised a country there.

There's more, but when the premises that you seem to be working from seem to lack recognition of even those basic points, it's hard to take this attempted line of argument to be anything other than an attempt to appeal to the current situation and emotion.

No, I'm trying to put myself in the existing situation, without the starting assumption that "well Israel is there now, so that should be taken as a given". Not to the displaced locals and refugees, I wouldn't think.

There is this recurring assumption in these threads that Israel had the right to seize the territory its on from the Arabs/Palestinians. I don't see that. That's not to say that Israel doesn't deserve to...exist, but where and how it's existence came into being was less than democratic and peaceful. It's more than a little ridiculous to say the Palestinians should just get over it and take the screwing with a smile and a hearty "thank you".

To poke at a somewhat more relevant question to the past, if you're a renter and the land owner sells the property to someone else, who then uses the land for other purposes, does that justify you seeking to murder the new owner and then just steal that land by force? The Arabs were rather vocal about their desire to do exactly that the moment that they felt that they could, after all, at last check. And, in fact, did immediately start a war to seek to do so the moment that they felt that they could. Should the Jews who had legally obtained property, often going out of their way to seek non-contentious land where they wouldn't displace the locals, have just let themselves be murdered and their hard work and very significant contributions plundered?

Lol, "renters", really? I suppose the Brits were justified in treating indigenous tribes in North America as their "renters", too?

That's pretty much exactly the kind of thing that you're trying to make justified with that last "Would you have accepted the UN resolution that created the whole **** storm if you were a Palestinian?" There's plenty of ugh that can be pointed at on whichever side, of course, but the logic that you're pushing seems to have very little other than attempted spin in the way of historical roots, concern with principle, or much of anything else objective in favor of an attempt at superficial emotional appeal.

No, not even close. I grew up with Israel as a kinda sorta democratic state existing. Then I remember how my parents and grandparents wouldn't have grown up with that as a starting assumption, and neither would a Palestinian, who has immediate reminders of what was taken from them and just how recently.

My sole point here is to knock the halo off Israel when we talk about who has what rights to exist. The Israelis are pretty adamant about others not existing if Israel says so, or at least existing where Israel unilaterally decides. What Hamas is doing, unconscionable as it is, has a very short tie to what Israel is doing there in the first place.

 

[Aridas]

This seems to be something that has often beeen posted, that prior to say 1900 Palestine was an empty land, then Arabs moved in just at the sametime that European Jews began to move in? That the Palestinians who were displaced in 1948 were not indigenous but merely migrant workers? Is there any reliable evidence to support this? It is often asserted but no one making this assertion has referenced it.

Not quite what I was referring to. There fairly certainly was some of that, by the look of it, but there's a fair bit more to the picture than an ending snapshot. By the look of it, while the British were administrating the area, the population almost tripled. 700,000 to about 1,900,000.

In 1920, the British Government's Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine:

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ. Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or—a small number—are Protestants. The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000.[74]

By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews (UNSCOP report, including Bedouin).

As can be seen from that and as I said, many of the Arabs were coming into the area at the same time as the Jews were coming into the area. The increases were very much linked, of course. Many of the incoming Jews were developing the land and making the region more prosperous, bountiful, and all around attractive, which naturally also attracted people from surrounding areas to relocate to there, whether temporarily for work or more permanently. The surrounding peoples largely identified as Arabs, so there's a nonpolitical part of the Arab population boom. The general increase in prosperity also allowed the Arab birthrate/survival rate to soar, by the look of it, though, too. Modern agriculture (at least modern then) makes a massive difference in the size of sustainable population compared to what was being practiced and the Jews were the ones who brought and practiced such. The arrival of the Jews is generally pretty directly linked to the increase of the Arab population in both cases.

The area underwent large changes in many ways, in short, and, as large changes tend to do, the changes were met with backlash. Even when the changes are greatly positive, greed and envy arise and are easily used by that old human exercise of seeking justification for selfishness.

 

[Planigale]

Not quite what I was referring to. There fairly certainly was some of that, by the look of it, but there's a fair bit more to the picture than an ending snapshot. By the look of it, while the British were administrating the area, the population almost tripled. 700,000 to about 1,900,000.



As can be seen from that and as I said, many of the Arabs were coming into the area at the same time as the Jews were coming into the area. The increases were very much linked, of course. Many of the incoming Jews were developing the land and making the region more prosperous, bountiful, and all around attractive, which naturally also attracted people from surrounding areas to relocate to there, whether temporarily for work or more permanently. The surrounding peoples largely identified as Arabs, so there's a nonpolitical part of the Arab population boom. The general increase in prosperity also allowed the Arab birthrate/survival rate to soar, by the look of it, though, too. Modern agriculture (at least modern then) makes a massive difference in the size of sustainable population compared to what was being practiced and the Jews were the ones who brought and practiced such. The arrival of the Jews is generally pretty directly linked to the increase of the Arab population in both cases.

The area underwent large changes in many ways, in short, and, as large changes tend to do, the changes were met with backlash. Even when the changes are greatly positive, greed and envy arise and are easily used by that old human exercise of seeking justification for selfishness.

Thanks. Between 1922 and 42 the Moslem population roughly doubled, this would have been in part natural population growth, and does not have to represent migration. The Christian population grew by roughly a similar amount. In contrast over a similar time period the Jewish population grew nearly ten fold. One could accept a similar natural population growth, but I think this must represent in part migration. Given circumstances in Europe this is entirely unexpected and understandable.

 

[Aridas]

No, I'm trying to put myself in the existing situation, without the starting assumption that "well Israel is there now, so that should be taken as a given".

It sure as heck doesn't look like you're doing that. It just looks like you are trying to act as an apologist for conflict seekers.

Lol, "renters", really? I suppose the Brits were justified in treating indigenous tribes in North America as their "renters", too?

Quite literally, I'm speaking of what actually happened with much of the land and the reactions to such. Much of the land bought by the Jews was not owned by the locals in the first place. Rather, the locals were renting it from faraway landlords and practicing very old (traditional!) and low yield means of food production on it. Jews then bought the land from the distinctly not local owners and decided to repurpose the land to dramatically more productive endeavors like then modern agriculture and industry. The previous renters who were kicked off of what they had considered "their land" were pointedly unhappy and acted to stir up conflict and wanted to take "their land" back, despite never having legally owned it and the new usages being dramatically more productive and beneficial for the community and region. Later on, there was much more focus by Jews on legally buying and developing land where they wouldn't be displacing locals, but, well, the course of the conflict seekers was already set.

So, once more, I will ask - Should the Jews who had legally obtained property, often going out of their way to seek non-contentious land where they wouldn't displace the locals, have just let themselves be murdered and their hard work and very significant contributions plundered?

This is still exactly the kind of thing that you're seeking to justify, after all.

My sole point here is to knock the halo off Israel when we talk about who has what rights to exist. The Israelis are pretty adamant about others not existing if Israel says so, or at least existing where Israel unilaterally decides. What Hamas is doing, unconscionable as it is, has a very short tie to what Israel is doing there in the first place.

Knock the halo off? More like deny entirely, by the look of it. There's something to be said for acknowledging the conflicting nature of the claims and the problematic actions on each side, but not that much to be said for what you're doing, which is just latching onto the same self-serving ilk as what the conflict causers were, without respect for anything else. Crap like that has been one of the biggest impediments to peace and prosperity for the Arabs.

 

[Aridas]

Thanks. Between 1922 and 42 the Moslem population roughly doubled, this would have been in part natural population growth, and does not have to represent migration.

There was a very dramatic increase in Arab population growth by percentage, to say the least. As was also identified in the link, the population in the area had previously doubled over about 75 years. Saying that the population roughly doubled over 20 is quite the change. That circles back to a base point there - the change in the rate of increase was very large and fairly certainly related to the migration of the Jews to the area.

In contrast over a similar time period the Jewish population grew nearly ten fold. One could accept a similar natural population growth, but I think this must represent in part migration. Given circumstances in Europe this is entirely unexpected and understandable.

I don't think that anyone has cast any doubt on the fact that there was a large influx in Jews migrating to the area during that time period.

 

[Thermal]

Quite literally, I'm speaking of what actually happened with much of the land and the reactions to such. Much of the land bought by the Jews was not owned by the locals in the first place. Rather, the locals were renting it from faraway landlords and practicing very old (traditional!) and low yield means of food production on it. Jews then bought the land from the distinctly not local owners and decided to repurpose the land to dramatically more productive endeavors like then modern agriculture and industry. The previous renters who were kicked off of what they had considered "their land" were pointedly unhappy and acted to stir up conflict and wanted to take "their land" back, despite never having legally owned it and the new usages being dramatically more productive and beneficial for the community and region. Later on, there was much more focus by Jews on legally buying and developing land where they wouldn't be displacing locals, but, well, the course of the conflict seekers was already set.

I was recently reading (maybe in an Al-Jazeera article? I'll try to find it) that as of UN '48, Jewish people owned about 6% of the land. I think its really stretching to slide it in there that they basically bought up the region. Israel came into existence by the force of Western powers doing, in my most humble of opinions, what they had no right to do and with utter contempt for the majority Arab population. Which might be expected of, say, the Nazis, but maybe not the Allies?

So, once more, I will ask - Should the Jews who had legally obtained property, often going out of their way to seek non-contentious land where they wouldn't displace the locals, have just let themselves be murdered and their hard work and very significant contributions plundered?

And answering: of course not. But the boundaries they claimed (and aggressively began expanding before the ink was dry on the Resolution) had nothing to do with the actual property ownership. It was the seized land beyond their ownership, and consequent ethnic displacement, that I am taking issue with.

This is still exactly the kind of thing that you're seeking to justify, after all.

Knock the halo off? More like deny entirely, by the look of it. There's something to be said for acknowledging the conflicting nature of the claims and the problematic actions on each side, but not that much to be said for what you're doing, which is just latching onto the same self-serving ilk as what the conflict causers were, without respect for anything else.

Again, no. I'm simply sick of hearing that the Palestinians should shut up and suck it up, because Israel says so. For as reprehensible as Hamas is, they are the reaction to, not the instigator of, hostilities.

Another poster said that the Palestinians should have just sucked it up a half century ago and been the "bigger people, moving forward in the spirit of brotherhood". Just got under my skin.

 

[Jedi]

When the British took over the mandate in 1918 the population was 99% Muslim.

not sure where you're getting this 99% Muslim number.

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

1914
Muslim 76%
Jews 14%
Christ. 10%

and if we look at Jerusalem only:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem

Muslims
1905: 25%
1922: 23%
Jews
1905: 41%
1922: 54%

So in 1914 Jews made up 14% of the population of Palestine and Muslims made up 76%. twice as many Jews in Jerusalem than Muslims in 1922 and Jews were the majority in Jerusalem going back, it appears, to the early 1800's. there has always been a jewish presence in the area.

The equal claim happened because of a MASSIVE import of European Jews without any attempt to take into consideration the local population's wishes.

was there a massive import of Arabs at any time?

Fair would have been a Jewish state carved out of Bavaria and maybe parts of Austria.

Is Judea in Bavaria or Austria?

Of course it's far too late to punish the descendants of the ones stealing the land now, but accepting that the land was unfairly stolen and recompensing the ones it was stolen from could go a long way in stabilizing the area.

no one 'stole' land. palestinians have rejected compensation.

 

[Aridas]

I was recently reading (maybe in an Al-Jazeera article? I'll try to find it) that as of UN '48, Jewish people owned about 6% of the land. I think its really stretching to slide it in there that they basically bought up the region.

This looks like little more than an attempted diversion from the points actually being made.

If you really want to use that statistic, though, there's a fair bit of fallacy included there. That number is focused on privately owned land and you sure look like you are slipping it in with the implicit assumption that the rest was privately owned by the Arabs at the time. To make things simple and short, it wasn't. Not even close. There's more that can be delved into on the subject, of course, because things are distinctly more complicated than can easily be dealt with without an essay - changing land ownership systems and paradigms are pretty much guaranteed to cause easy ground for cherry picking and spin.

Israel came into existence by the force of Western powers doing, in my most humble of opinions, what they had no right to do and with utter contempt for the majority Arab population. Which might be expected of, say, the Nazis, but maybe not the Allies?

Personally, I strongly disagree with three of those claims. The force of Western powers certainly played a notable role in Israel coming to be, yes. The fall of the Ottoman Empire had much to do with the Western powers, after all. "No right to do" just leads to an eyeroll from me, though, given the nature and history of rights. As does the "utter contempt for the majority Arab population" which sure seems to have remarkably little basis in contemporary fact or practice for such a claim. As part of that, the land division in the area that eventually got passed had a distinctly larger share of good land going to the Arabs - the almost completely unowned, undesirable, and deserted Negev desert made up pretty close to half of the land to be allocated for the Jewish State after negotiations. Utter contempt for the Arabs isn't really shown when their allocation of desirable land was nearly proportionate to the population percentage, despite their overall intransigence. As for the Nazis bit, again, eyeroll territory, because it's so poorly rooted in anything objective.

And answering: of course not. But the boundaries they claimed (and aggressively began expanding before the ink was dry on the Resolution) had nothing to do with the actual property ownership. It was the seized land beyond their ownership, and consequent ethnic displacement, that I am taking issue with.

Being unhappy with the ethnic displacement is reasonable, of course. There's a lot to criticize when it comes to the crimes and terrorism that both Jews and Arabs had been committing for a fair while, though. That it happened with full expectation and understanding that the Arab powers would be making war against them immediately regardless adds context. Displacement because of war is ever problematic in multiple ways, especially in contexts as murky and contentious as what was in play.

Again, no. I'm simply sick of hearing that the Palestinians should shut up and suck it up, because Israel says so. For as reprehensible as Hamas is, they are the reaction to, not the instigator of, hostilities.

Eyeroll-worthy again, here. Hamas can only qualify as a reaction to and not the instigator of hostilities by using extremely dishonest technicalities. They're part of a long tradition of Arabs who seek conflict with the Jews to take all that land and wealth. Hamas itself is not "the instigator of" hostilities only by virtue of the date of the organization's creation, not by action or roots.

Another poster said that the Palestinians should have just sucked it up a half century ago and been the "bigger people, moving forward in the spirit of brotherhood". Just got under my skin.

Fair enough. That specific quote didn't make an impression for me, though. That may be because it's adjacent to truth. Had the Arabs been willing to work together with the Jews, the prosperity of both would likely be a bit amazing by now. For the sake of self-interest and a better future, the Palestinians should have "sucked it up" since before there was an Israel. Instead, they took a gamble on war and violence - and lost. Followed by making that gamble again and again and again from ever more disadvantageous conditions.

Even if we allow that their goal can remain the destruction of the Jewish State as part of a more limited self-interest, the means that they employed to do such can be simply stated to be failures and actively counter-productive. They should have "sucked it up" in the past and made an agreement that would have given themselves a real foundation to work from, even if it would require making limited concessions. That way, their chances of success could go up dramatically if handled appropriately.

 

[dudalb]

As long a HAMAS reamins in power in Gaza there will be no way forward out of this morass.
problem with the Left is they don't get HAMAS Is a group of religious fanatics, not a slightly misguided revolutionary group. That is a huge difference between them and the IRA.